Former AWA Pilot writes the truth

[Carl S.]

Metrojet, you are reading too many USAPA legal updates that are way off in accuracy. Did you like the last update Q&A that stated that USAPA and the Company agree that a non-nic is legal! Then why the DJ? The spin comes from both sides, but the inaccuracies rain down from USAPA, just like leaving the last part of that sentence off from the 9th ruling always that changes the whole statement. USAPA is managing your expectations again, just like how you were mislead during the senority arbitration process.

 

[charlie2]

Metrojet, you are reading too many USAPA legal updates that are way off in accuracy. Did you like the last update Q&A that stated that USAPA and the Company agree that a non-nic is legal! Then why the DJ? The spin comes from both sides, but the inaccuracies rain down from USAPA, just like leaving the last part of that sentence off from the 9th ruling always that changes the whole statement. USAPA is managing your expectations again, just like how you were mislead during the senority arbitration process.

Headin' out to the beach with the grand kid in a moment but wanted to ask again...Are you saying that during negotiations when the company accepts a section of the contract it becomes a contract? Are you saying that when a section is "accepted" it can't be re-opened during negotiations? I think that ultimately the (many) courts involved will say that sections can be re-opened up until the contract is ratified by the members. Even after ratification a section can be re-opened the result being possibly an LOA.

 

[Captzaahlie]

--------

 

[becket]

Headin' out to the beach with the grand kid in a moment but wanted to ask again...Are you saying that during negotiations when the company accepts a section of the contract it becomes a contract? Are you saying that when a section is "accepted" it can't be re-opened during negotiations? I think that ultimately the (many) courts involved will say that sections can be re-opened up until the contract is ratified by the members. Even after ratification a section can be re-opened the result being possibly an LOA.

Good question. You should ask a Jury....OH that's right. You did.

What did the Unanimous jury conclude inside of 90 minutes again?

 

[cactusboy53]

Catcusboy53 -

You never answered my question about the fairness of how all furloughed pilots would be from the east with the LAS closure (if Nic was used)

But - it is moot - and you are INCORRECT that the Nic is part of our Current CBA (like a LOA or side letter) - it is a totally separate document - sort of like an addendum to an unsigned or not yet effective contract. It is simple law - but you continue to believe that is part of a contract (see joint collective bargaining contract definition) - which all of us get to vote on.

Metrojet

Fair is the event that takes place in your county seat each summer. I'm really tired of the constant bellyaching about how "the Nic isn't fair".

You are right, it is moot. The courts will finish this, and I am correct. The courts will tell you that a final and binding agreement will not be vacated based on the perceived fairness of said product of an agreed upon process. USAPA is bound by LAW to fairly represent all US Airways pilots (not just those that are based east of the Mississippi). As the new CBA USAPA is bound by LAW to abide by all contracts, agreements, letters of agreements and conditions thereof.

It's going to be a long fall to reality, bub. I hope you have your parachute on. Cleary & his gang are busy feathering their nests for as long as they can.....while telling you "all is well!!".

 

[charlie2]

Good question. You should ask a Jury....OH that's right. You did.

What did the Unanimous jury conclude inside of 90 minutes again?

So you agree we can negotiate?

 

[becket]

So you agree we can negotiate?

Not seniority...after binding arbitration. A jury found that it violated the law to do so. Remember?

 

[charlie2]

Not seniority...after binding arbitration. A jury found that it violated the law to do so. Remember?

Two separate issues. The DFR suit wasn't about a unions right to re-open sections of a possible future contract during negotiations. It was a not-yet ripe attempt to collect damages from USAPA and yes to try and force the nic on us. I doubt Judge Silver will tell the company that they can't re-open sections, she doesn't have the authority to meddle with the RLA. So, once the companies suit is decided we will then put a DOH list in the contract and after it is ratified and only after it is will DFR II start. If DFR II is won by the west I doubt a judge would have the power to un-do a negotiated contract that would cost the company alot of money. Off to the beach again...happy fathers' day to all.

 

[The Rookie]

Two separate issues. The DFR suit wasn't about a unions right to re-open sections of a possible future contract during negotiations. It was a not-yet ripe attempt to collect damages from USAPA and yes to try and force the nic on us. I doubt Judge Silver will tell the company that they can't re-open sections, she doesn't have the authority to meddle with the RLA. So, once the companies suit is decided we will then put a DOH list in the contract and after it is ratified and only after it is will DFR II start. If DFR II is won by the west I doubt a judge would have the power to un-do a negotiated contract that would cost the company alot of money. Off to the beach again...happy fathers' day to all.

Putting a DOH list in the future joint contract violates LOA 96 (AAA-AWA Transition Agreement). This LOA was ratified by the pilots of both America West and US Airways in 2005 and is a legal part of both groups Collective Bargaining Agreements which USAPA has inherited.

I'll once again remind everyone what the Transition Agreement says in regards to the integrated seniority list:

The seniority lists of America West pilots and US Airways pilots will be integrated in accordance with ALPA Merger Policy and submitted to the Airline Parties for acceptance. The Airline Parties will accept such integrated seniority list, including conditions and restrictions, if such list and the conditions and restrictions comply with the following criteria:

1. no "system flush" whereby an active pilot may displace any other active pilot from the latter’s Position; and

2. furloughed pilots may not bump/displace active pilots; and

3. no requirement for pilots to be compensated for flying not performed (e.g., differential pay for a position not actually flown); and

4. allows pilots who, at the time of implementation of an integrated seniority list, are in the process of completing or who have completed initial qualification training for a new category (e.g., A320 Captain or 757 First Officer) to be assigned to the position for which they have been trained, regardless of their relative standing on the integrated seniority list; and

5. does not contain conditions and restrictions that materially increase costs associated with training or company paid moves

This is a three party document between the East, West and the Company. The Company is on the legal record to have accepted the Nicolau list in accordance with ALPA Merger Policy as per this Letter of Agreement.

However, the East and the Company would be certainly happy to alter this document to achieve their goals. The East wants a DOH list and the Company knows they can extort a concessionary deal to make this happen.

This leaves the under-represented West pilots. The only reason the Company filed the Declaratory Judgement is to receive a "get out of jail free" card from any future litigation from the West pilots who are having the Transition Agreement altered without their consent by the Company and the East.

Simply, the Company doesn't care which list get used. They just don't want to be sued by the West by violating the Transition Agreement, which legally binds the Company, East and West to the Nicolau seniority list once a joint contract is obtained.

 

[charlie2]

I'll try again. Previous contracts and LOA's can be changed. If they couldn't we'd be working under great work rules and pay but that was changed by an LOA (93). You're saying LOA 96 can never be changed by a future LOA or contract and we are saying it can and will be. This stuff is never written in stone or will ever be...it is always amendable...still waitin' on the grand kid to show up...have a good one

 

[becket]

Two separate issues. The DFR suit wasn't about a unions right to re-open sections of a possible future contract during negotiations. It was a not-yet ripe attempt to collect damages from USAPA and yes to try and force the nic on us. I doubt Judge Silver will tell the company that they can't re-open sections, she doesn't have the authority to meddle with the RLA. So, once the companies suit is decided we will then put a DOH list in the contract and after it is ratified and only after it is will DFR II start. If DFR II is won by the west I doubt a judge would have the power to un-do a negotiated contract that would cost the company alot of money. Off to the beach again...happy fathers' day to all.

The dj is about the ta and contract law. You're just spouting the usapa misguided half truth about what is really happening here. This has nothing to do with labor law or the rla. If it usapa has got this one in the bag, why did they waste a full year fighting like he'll to keep this from getting in front of a judge?

 

[TWA Dude]

If DFR II is won by the west I doubt a judge would have the power to un-do a negotiated contract that would cost the company alot of money.

A contract that violates a union's DFR isn't a valid contract so of course a judge would have the authority to set it aside. Your statement shows what I've thought all along: you know what you're doing is wrong but figure you might get away with it. Some example you set for that grandson of yours.

 

[Metrojet]

A contract that violates a union's DFR isn't a valid contract so of course a judge would have the authority to set it aside. Your statement shows what I've thought all along: you know what you're doing is wrong but figure you might get away with it. Some example you set for that grandson of yours.

Actually Charlie2 is teaching his grandson a good lesson - That Grandpa ain't that old and isn't going to roll over dead for an injustice that was placed unfairly upon him by some guy named Nic who wrongly believed that an older group should give up more that another group because he thought they were going out of business (even though both groups would cease to exsist without the other, according to Doug).

Metrojet

 

[TWA Dude]

Your sanctimonious reply clearly demonstrates your lack of integrity and ignorance of what constitutes an injustice. Disagreeing with an arbitrator's decision doesn't justify making an end-run around it for your own gain. See you in Judge Silver's court for a lesson on what justice is.

 

[charlie2]

A contract that violates a union's DFR isn't a valid contract so of course a judge would have the authority to set it aside. Your statement shows what I've thought all along: you know what you're doing is wrong but figure you might get away with it. Some example you set for that grandson of yours.

No, I don't think what we are doing is wrong. We really believe we are correcting a wrong.

Hey Metrojet, I sure miss those trips and the 737-200!

 

[TWA Dude]

No, I don't think what we are doing is wrong. We really believe we are correcting a wrong.

Help me to understand your reasoning. I get the part about you thinking Nicolau made a bad decision. A person of your age (and even mine) has seen a number of arbitrations and some of them are truly horrible. Is that not the risk in handing a dispute to a third party? Why do you think it's "correcting a wrong" to use the East's greater numbers to shove a seniority list of your liking down the West's gullet?

Seriously, like a prison psychiatrist, I'm truly trying to understand how you can rationalize your behavior.

 

[charlie2]

Help me to understand your reasoning. I get the part about you thinking Nicolau made a bad decision. A person of your age (and even mine) has seen a number of arbitrations and some of them are truly horrible. Is that not the risk in handing a dispute to a third party? Why do you think it's "correcting a wrong" to use the East's greater numbers to shove a seniority list of your liking down the West's gullet?

Seriously, like a prison psychiatrist, I'm truly trying to understand how you can rationalize your behavior.

I truly believe Nicolau was given a list that was wrong. You could never ever convince me that a pilot flying an aircraft for a company which is owned by that company and operating under that companies cert, being paid by that company and paying union dues to the union that represents that companies pilots are not that companies active employee. If I tried to sue Delta's pilots union for DFR it would be dismissed on day one because I'm not part of that union but our guys are suing US Airways pilots former union and it hasn't been dismissed because they were active US Airways pilots. Ya ya I know the original intention was to have that be a separate op but it wasn't. If these guys were a bunch of new hires we wouldn't be having this discussion but the guys ALPA tried to throw under the bus were a bunch of 16+ year guys who you and yours always say "brought nothing to the table". That's just one of my rationalizations and you will never be able to change my mind.

 

[becket]

I truly believe Nicolau was given a list that was wrong.

nobody that actually matters has EVER agreed with you. It hasn't been dismissed because it's dead in the water. Nobody is paying their attorneys. Lawyers aren't dumb enough to trust east pilots word...or credit.

 

[charlie2]

nobody that actually matters has EVER agreed with you. It hasn't been dismissed because it's dead in the water. Nobody is paying their attorneys. Lawyers aren't dumb enough to trust east pilots word...or credit.

No it's not dead in the water, it's moving as fast as every other lawsuit that has ever been filed. They were so blatantly active mailine pilots. When they were furloughed what list were they on? I can't believe any pilot would want to try and screw another pilot using management. Every pilot in the world should be on these guys sides. If you got furloughed (God forbid) would you get put on a differant airlines seniority list?

 

[becket]

No it's not dead in the water, it's moving as fast as every other lawsuit that has ever been filed. They were so blatantly active mailine pilots. When they were furloughed what list were they on? I can't believe any pilot would want to try and screw another pilot using management. Every pilot in the world should be on these guys sides. If you got furloughed (God forbid) would you get put on a differant airlines seniority list?

They accepted EMPLOYMENT AT ANOTHER AIRLINE. So yes. They were on a different seniority list. Really not hard to understand.

 

[charlie2]

They accepted EMPLOYMENT AT ANOTHER AIRLINE. So yes. They were on a different seniority list. Really not hard to understand.

Not sure what you're saying, I was talking about the attempt by the pathetic US Airways management to start a new express ops with E-170's and within a few weeks were told by the FAA to operate them as mainline or not at all. I think it was due in part to inadequate manuals. The original intent was qickly changed to a mainline operation staffed by mainline pilots. A few years later when they sold those mainline assets the pilots were told by the scumbags in management that because we are only selling some mainline aircraft that the pilots won't go with them. If it were truly a separate op all the pilots would have had to go with the aircraft. You can't have it both ways. Other pilots want to jump on board with these scumbag management guys to screw fellow pilots...that's low.

 

[TWA Dude]

That's just one of my rationalizations and you will never be able to change my mind.

You're not helping me understand. I'm not trying to get you to agree with Nicolau; I'm trying to see how you think it's okay to screw the West pilots. No matter how the MDA suit progresses it won't change the Nic list. You need to find a different outlet for your anger over how badly the world is treating you.

 

[charlie2]

You're not helping me understand. I'm not trying to get you to agree with Nicolau; I'm trying to see how you think it's okay to screw the West pilots. No matter how the MDA suit progresses it won't change the Nic list. You need to find a different outlet for your anger over how badly the world is treating you.

We don't see it as screwing anyone but as not screwing us. I want the "save Dave" guy, who was hired many many years after me to be a PHX 757 captain way before I could hold it, but you want that young man to be my captain...right?

 

[eaglesview]

They accepted EMPLOYMENT AT ANOTHER AIRLINE. So yes. They were on a different seniority list. Really not hard to understand.

That's the great debate isn't it?

ie you're forloughed...you can have a job at this "other airline" that operates on our certificate and will be flown by you "forloughed pilots."

 

[charlie2]

That's the great debate isn't it?

ie you're forloughed...you can have a job at this "other airline" that operates on our certificate and will be flown by you "forloughed pilots."

And we pilots are managements best friends in that regard! It's been done before so many times and will be done again with pilots help and cooperation...nice. Oh ya Eagle I want your job.

 

[C Festerpuss]

http://prhalloffame.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/deadparrot.png

It is quite hard to keep track of the state of litigation going on that is now intruding on the seniority dispute and negotiations at US Airwyas. It is sometimes helpful to use analogy and metaphor to draw and illuminate the similarities and differences between two situations or conditions.
I would invite you to consider the well known Monty Python Dead Parrot Sketch. Every time you hear the words Dead Parrot, or reference to a dead parrot please think “Addington Litigation”.

A customer enters a pet shop.​

Mr. Praline: 'Ello, I wish to register a complaint. I wish to complain about this parrot what I purchased not half an hour ago from this very boutique.

Owner: Oh yes, the, uh, the Norwegian Blue...What's,uh...What's wrong with it?

Mr. Praline: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. 'E's dead, that's what's wrong with it!

Owner: No, no, 'e's uh,...he's resting

The Army of Leonidas, (shop owner) would have you believe that the Dead Parrot is merely resting, and pining for the fjords. In fact their litigation is stone cold dead.

Mr. Praline: Look, matey, I know a dead parrot when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.

Owner: No no he's not dead, he's, he's restin'! Remarkable bird, the Norwegian Blue, idn'it, ay? Beautiful plumage! (Beautiful Plumage = “but the jury found for us in the Addington Litigation.”

Mr. Praline: The plumage don't enter into it. It's stone dead. (this is a true statement)

Owner: Nononono, no, no! 'E's resting! (No the jury found for us and the case is still alive……)

Consider the Following:​

· The Addington Litigation was dismissed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals In published precedential decision.
· The Addington Plaintiffs appealed for an en-banc hearing and were denied.
· The Addington Plaintiffs appealed via a writ of certiorari to the Unites States Supreme court and were denied.
· When the company filed for a Declaratory judgment the Addington plaintiffs filed a cross claim, suggesting that their case was now somehow ripe.
· The Addington Plaintiffs appealed to judge Neil Wake to assume jurisdiction over their cross claim and implement the Nicolau award.
· Judge Wake declined to do so and allowed the entire case to be transferred to Judge Roslyn Silver.
· Judge Roslyn Silver dismissed the Addington plaintiffs claim.

Mr. Praline: (yelling and hitting the cage repeatedly) 'ELLO POLLY!!!!! Testing! Testing! Testing! Testing! This is your nine o'clock alarm call!

(Takes parrot out of the cage and thumps its head on the counter. Throws it up in the air and watches it plummet to the floor.) (this is what judge Roslyn Siver has just done to the Addington Litigation)

Mr. Praline: Now that's what I call a dead parrot.

Owner: No, no.....No, 'e's stunned

Mr. Praline: STUNNED?!?

Owner: Yeah! You stunned him, just as he was wakin' up! Norwegian Blues stun easily, major.

Mr. Praline: Um...now look...now look, mate, I've definitely 'ad enough of this. That parrot is definitely deceased, and when I purchased it not 'alf an hour ago, you assured me that its total lack of movement was due to it bein' tired and shagged out following a prolonged squawk.

Owner: Well, he's...he's, ah...probably pining for the fjords. (Somehow Judge Wake will rescue us…)

http://www.kyj.biz/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/02918.jpg

Mr. Praline: PININ' for the FJORDS?!?!?!? What kind of talk is that?, look, why did he fall flat on his back the moment I got 'im home? (The litigation has fallen flat on it’s back in front of Wake, the Ninth, the Supreme Court and now judge Silver.)

Owner: The Norwegian Blue prefers keepin' on it's back! Remarkable bird, id'nit, squire? Lovely plumage! (We won in a now defunct jury trial….so there you big bugggers.)

THERE IS NO LEGAL CLAIM WHATSOEVER IN THE ORIGIONAL ADDIINGTON CASE. IT IS DEAD, LIKE THE PARROT IN THE DEAD PARROT SKETCH.​

Mr. Praline: 'E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-PARROT!!






FOR THE LAST TIME: The Addington litigation is done, finished, kaput, terminated, “ceased to be”, concluded, “reached a finality” and “JOINED THE CHIOR INVISIBLE.” It will never rise again in its original form. It cannot be referenced. It cannot even be mentioned in a future case, it will be objected to as prejudicial. Some of the elements of the litigation may again be used such as, testimony, deposition and other forms of evidence. None of the rulings of the court, uncontested findings of fact or bench decisions on procedure, evidence or other court actions can be used. It will be a new trial.


http://www.starstore.com/acatalog/Monty_Python_Parrot-01.jpg

ADDINGTON THE PARROT…..R.I.P.​

 

[charlie2]

Thanks for that!

Owner: Yeah! You stunned him, just as he was wakin' up! Norwegian Blues stun easily, major.

 

[TWA Dude]

We don't see it as screwing anyone but as not screwing us.

Then your vision is severely myopic. A federal court jury agreed.

...but you want that young man to be my captain...right?

wrong. All I want is for binding arbitration to be binding. I didn't think that was asking for too much.

 

[cactusboy53]

We don't see it as screwing anyone but as not screwing us. I want the "save Dave" guy, who was hired many many years after me to be a PHX 757 captain way before I could hold it, but you want that young man to be my captain...right?

Oh, I get it now. This is just like USAPA's response to the Leonidas Brochure series....This is about AGE DISCRIMINATION. That's all. USAPA's argument was all about Ferguson's age and seat he could hold under the Nicolau

Based on these arguments, it sounds like you would be in favor of a DATE OF BIRTH seniority list. Right?

Sorry Charlie, but the court system will finish this. I'm gonna take a wild stab and guess that you won't like the results from that entity either. The difference is that this will be final and binding....really final and binding.

 

[TWA Dude]

It cannot even be mentioned in a future case, it will be objected to as prejudicial. Some of the elements of the litigation may again be used such as, testimony, deposition and other forms of evidence.

Those two sentences contradict. In any case, Judge Silver referenced the Addington case numerous times in her rulings and you can bet she and the company will reference it again and again in coming motions and pleadings. I guess neither of them agree with $eham's view on how Addington never happened.